The liability to pay compensation for a motor accident lies with the Insurance Company if the vehicle is fully insured and the driver possesses a valid driving licence.

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.

1. This order of mine will dispose of F.A.O. No. 297 of 1993 filed by Vikas, owner of the car on whom the liability to pay compensation has been fastened. Cross Objection No. 71-CII of 1994 filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation and Cross Objections No. 41-CII of 1996 filed by the Insurance Company for dismissal of the appeal.

2. In brief, the case of the appellant is that he could not prove the Insurance Policy and driving licence which were on the record of criminal case as no specific issue in this regard was framed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala.

3. The appellant filed Civil Misc. Application No. 1487-CII of 1993 in this Court and the Court vide its order dated 20.5.1993, after issuing notices to the claimant as well as to the Insurance Company, framed the following additional issues:-

1) Whether the vehicle in question was covered under a valid insurance policy on the date of accident?

2) Whether the person driving the vehicle in question at the time of accident possessed a valid driving licence?

The Court directed the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, which had given the award in the first instance, to afford reasonable opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence and to submit a report on the above noted issues within three months from the date of the order. Parties through their counsel were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 26.5.1993 and the case was adjourned to 6.9.1993 to await the report of the Tribunal.

4. The record alongwith report of the Tribunal was received. The Tribunal afforded opportunities to the parties to produce the evidence. Sh. Ashok Mathur, Advocate who was representing the Insurance Company was called for and opportunities were granted to him to lead evidence in rebuttal to the evidence led by the owner of the car i.e. to show that the driving licence or the registration certificate and the Insurance Policy were not genuine. However, learned counsel for the Insurance Company in spite of opportunities, could not produce any evidence and could not show any circumstance lending suspicion to the genuineness of driving licence, Exh. R-1, registration certificate and Insurance policy, Exh. R-3. The Tribunal had returned a finding that the insurance policy, copy Exh. R-2 was issued on 20.6.1989 and was valid up to 20.6.1990. This cover note was for Car No. PCS-8 and in the name of Vikas Kumar son of Kewal Krishan, Mehak Restaurant; Chandigarh. Additional Issue No.1 was decided in favour of owner of the car. On the second issue, the Tribunal also recorded a finding that Vikas at the time of accident, was holding a valid driving licence. Copy of the same was produced before the Tribunal as Exh. R-1 which was valid from 25.11.1985 to 24.11.1993.

5. Since the tribunal had returned a categoric finding that the owner of car No. PCS-8 was holding a valid driving licence and the vehicle was fully insured with the Insurance Company, this Court is of the view that liability to pay compensation would be that of the Insurance Company. As such, the finding of the Tribunal on issue No.2, which was originally framed by it, is set aside.

6. In the cross objections filed by the claimant, it has been stated that the claimant received crushed injuries on the right leg and as a result thereof the same was amputated from below the knee cap and he suffered permanent disability but the compensation awarded to him on account of amputation of right leg below the knee cap, disability and pain and suffering does not commensurate with the injuries.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the claimant and perused the paper book. I am of the view that the compensation awarded does not commensurate with the injuries suffered by Harjit Singh claimant. The clamant, at the time of accident, was a young boy of 24 years and has been rendered crippled for whole of his life. His movements have been totally restricted due to amputation of his right limb of the body.